te of buddhi; this is quite unintelligible, for knowledge does
not belong to buddhi as it is non-intelligent, though it contains
within it the content and the form of the concept or the percept
(knowledge). The puru@sa to whom the knowledge belongs, however,
neither knows, nor feels, neither conceives nor perceives, as
it always remains in its own transcendental purity. If the transcendental
contact of the puru@sa with buddhi is but a mere semblance
or appearance or illusion, then the Sa@mkhya has to admit
that there is no real knowledge according to them. All knowledge
is false. And since all knowledge is false, the Sa@mkhyists have
precious little wherewith to explain the origin of right knowledge.

There are again some Buddhists who advocate the doctrine
that simultaneously with the generation of an object there is the
knowledge corresponding to it, and that corresponding to the
rise of any knowledge there is the rise of the object of it. Neither
is the knowledge generated by the object nor the object by the
knowledge; but there is a sort of simultaneous parallelism. It is
evident that this view does not explain why knowledge should

332

express or manifest its object. If knowledge and the object are
both but corresponding points in a parallel series, whence comes
this correspondence? Why should knowledge illuminate the
object. The doctrine of the Vijnana vadins, that it is knowledge
alone that shows itself both as knowledge and as its object, is also
irrational, for how can knowledge divide itself as subject and object
in such a manner that knowledge as object should require
the knowledge as subject to illuminate it? If this be the case we
might again expect that knowledge as knowledge should also
require another knowledge to manifest it and this another, and so on
_ad infinitum_. Again if prama@na be defined as _prapa@na_ (capacity
of being realized) then also it would not hold, for all things being
momentary according to the Buddhists, the thing known cannot
be realized, so there would be nothing which could be called
prama@na. These views moreover do not explain the origin of
knowledge. Knowledge is thus to be regarded as an effect like
any other effect, and its origin or production occurs in the same
way as any other effect, namely by the joint collocation of causes
intellectual and physical [Footnote ref 1]. There is no transcendent
element involved in the production of knowledge, but it is a production
o